### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma rch 7, 2006 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1522 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 64 1- CR-AJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us CHRIS TOPHER W ILSON, a. k. a. Ch ri s L awre nc e Cr idl an d, a.k .a. Cri s C rid la nd , et al ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (M ar ch 7, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Bo o k er wa s d ec i d edb y

th e S u p re m e C o urtaf

t er De fe n d an twa s s en t en ce d
. Ats e n t e n c i n g, 1 Def endant r aised his constitutional c laims ba sed on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct . 2531 (2004). B e c a us e the B oo ke r d e c isi on

a pp lie s to a ll c a se s on dir e c t re vie w, we a pp ly B oo ke r to thi s a

pp e a l. Booke r, 125 S.Ct. at 769. Gu ide lin e c a lc ulatio ns we re do ne un de r t he 20 02 Gu ide lin e s Ma

nu a l. 2 2 De fendant-Appellant Christopher W ilson appeals the 72-m onth sentence im pose d up on h is c onvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it bank and m ai l f

ra ud, in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. § 37 1; b an k f

ra ud, in vio la tio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 1 344 an d 2; and m ail fra

ud, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. §§ 13 41 and 2. Def endant contend s that the sentence im

posed vi olated his con stitut ional and statu tory rights un der Booker
v. U nit ed S ta te s, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 ( 2005 ). W e va cate a nd r em an d f or r es en te nc ing
. 1 D ef en dants c onst itu tio na l c la im s w er e ra ise d ti m el y in the dis tr ic t c ourt and,
as suc h, pr es er

ve d f or our r ev ie w . D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

his S ixth A m en dm en t ri ght s w er e vio la te d w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at ( i) the a m ount

of los s exceeded $1,000,000 (qualify ing hi m for a 16-level offense enhancem ent under U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 B 1
. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( I ) ) ; ( i i ) th e o f f e n s e i n v o l v e d1 0 o r

mo r e v i c t i ms 2 (q ua li fy in g h im

fora 2- le ve l o ffen se en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2B 1. 1( b) (2 )( A )( i) ; and ( iii ) the of fe nse inv olv ed

sop his tic at ed

m eans ( qua lif

y ing hi m fora two -le ve l o ffen se en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(8 )(C) ). W e doub t tha t D ef

en dant s uf

fe re d avio la tio n of

his S ixth A m en dm en t rights. About the first tw o enhancem ents (loss am ount and num ber of victim s),3

De fe n d an tco n t es t ed n o fa ct s s up p o rt i n g th o s e e n h an ce m en t s . A d ef en d an t ’s failure to dispute facts set out in the PSI or r ecited at the plea c olloq uy operates as
ana dm iss ionof

tho se f ac ts f or Bo oke r pur

pose s. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. S he lto n, 400 F. 3d 1 325, 133 0 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) ( co nc lud ing that se nte nc e en hanc em en t th ba se d ondr

ug quanti ty

not vio la tiv e of

Bo oke r w he re de fe ndant f ai le d to dis put e fa ct s inthe P SI ). Ase nte nc ing e nhanc em en t ba se d ona dm itt ed f ac ts h as no S ixth A m en dm en t i m

pli catio ns unde r Bo oke r. I d. About the sop his tic at ed -m eans
en hanc em en t, D ef

en dant n ev er

c ont es te d th e fa ct s un de rl y ing the e nhanc em en t; instead, he ar gued that appl ication of the soph isticated-m eans enhancem ent was im proper in the light of the fac ts of the case. T he district court’ s conclusio n that the of fe nse inv olv ed

sop his tic at ed

m eans i nvol ve d th e ap pli catio n of lawto rel ev an t ad m it te d fa ct s, s ee Un it edSta te s v . Pet ho , 40 9 F .3d12 77 , 12 79 -8 0 n .1 (1 1 Ci r. 200 5) ; no c onst itu tio na l B ooke r pr inc ipl e w as im pli cate d by

the th im posi tio n of

asop his tic at ed -m eans e nhanc em en t. Although the district court com m itted no con stitut ional Book er e rror, statutory Booker err or occurs w hen the sentencing court m isapplies th e guidelines by c onsi de ri ng the m

a s bi ndi ng “ ev enin the abse nc e of aS ixth A m en dm en t
en hanc em en t vi olatio n. ” S he lto n, 400 F
. 3d at 13 30- 31. S ta tut or y Bo oke r er

ro r requires re versal “ onlyif [the e rror] resulted in actual prej udice because it had4

subs tantial and injurious effec t or influence in determ ining the [re sult]. ” U nited States v. Ga llegos-Aguero, 409 F. 3d 12 74, 1277 (11 Cir. 2005 ) (quoting United th States v. Guzm an, 167 F. 3d 13 50, 1353 (11 Cir. 1999 )). T he governm ent bears th t h e b u rd en t o s h o w t h e ab s en ce o f e ff ec to f t h e s t at u t o ry erro r o n th e d ef en d an t ’s subs tantial rights. United State s v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289 , 1291 (11 Cir. th 20 05 ). A sen te nc e is du e to be affi rm edif i t ca n b e sa id“ ‘w it h fa ir a ss ur an ce ... that the [sentence] wa s not su bstantiallysway ed by the err or.’ ” Id. (quoting United St at es v. H or

na day , 392 F
. 3d 1 306, 131 5- 16 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) , c er t. de nie d, 125 th S. Ct
. 295 1 ( 2005 ))
. A lth oughthe non -c onst itu tio na l harm le ss e rr or standard of
re vie wim

pose s ale ss d em an din g burd enon the gov er nm en t than th e be y ond a reasonable doubt b urden im posed in cases of constitu tional error, see Mathenia, 409 F. 3d at 12 91- 92, “ the non -c onst itu tio na l harm le ss e rr or standard is not e as y fo r the gov er

nm en t t o m ee t. ” I d. a t 12 92. The governm ent concedes Booker statutory err or; it argues the err or wa s harm less because the sentence im posed -- 72 m onth s -- w as two m onth s high er than th e bot tom

of D ef en dant’ s a

ppl ic ab le se nte nc ing r an ge of 70 t o 87 m onths, and because the court stated that it believed the sentence “ appropriate, given [D ef en dant’ s] r ole a nd a ct ivi tie s inthi s c as e, a nd i t c om es c los e to the bottom of the G uid el ine s r ec om

m en de d by

the part ie s. ” Bu t the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso5

co m m en te d th at

D ef en dant w oul d be r es en te nc ed if the “ G uid el ine s go down in fl am es . ” T his c om

m en t su gge sts that D ef

en dant c oul d have r ec ei ve d adif fe re nt sentence if the district court fa shion ed a sentence in a se ntencing sch em e w here t h e g u i d e l i n e s we r e a d v i s o ry. Th e r ec o rd d o es n o tal l o w u s t o s ay wi t h fa i r a s s u ra n ce th at De fe n d an t ’s sentence w as not sub stantially im pacted on by

the statutory

Booker err or. What sentence the district court would have im posed hadit considered the guid elines advis or y is im poss ibl e to t el l. T he gov er nm en t c annot

m ee t the bur de n of

pr ovi ng th atth e d is tri ctco ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e g ui de li ne s as m an da to ry was h arm le ss . A cc or din gly , w e va cate D ef en dant’ s se nte nc e an d r em an d f or r es en te nc ing consist ent with Booker. VACATED andREMANDED.